The Fallacy of F.F.O.

While most stocks are evaluated according to their earnings, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT’s) are evaluated according to Funds from Operations (FFO). Analysts believe that FFO provides for the best measure of a REIT’s value. I argue the opposite is true under current circumstances. In a declining real estate market, FFO grossly overstates the value of a REIT.

What is FFO?
In their online glossary, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), a REIT trade and lobbying group, defines FFO as follows:

Funds From Operations (FFO) The most commonly accepted and reported measure of REIT operating performance. Equal to a REIT’s net income, excluding gains or losses from sales of property, and adding back real estate depreciation.

Basically you get FFO by taking GAAP Net Income and reversing gains or losses from sales and depreciation expense. It is the latter that will greatly distort the value of a REIT in hard times.

What is the Rationale for the Use of FFO?
Analysts believe that FFO is a better measure of a REIT’s health than net income because of the belief that real estate consistently appreciates in value. According to the NAREIT’s white paper on Funds From Operations (2002):

“Historical cost accounting for real estate assets implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time. Since real estate values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, many industry investors have considered presentations of operating results for real estate companies that use historical cost accounting to be insufficient by themselves.

The term Funds From Operations was created to address this problem. It was intended to be a standard supplemental measure of REIT operating performance that excluded historical cost depreciation from — or “added it back” to — GAAP net income.”

Thus, Depreciation is reversed because, in THEORY, real estate values increase over time so it is unfair to subtract depreciation from income because such assets would likely be sold for a profit at a later date and would not depreciate to zero like equipment. I believe it is a fallacy to reverse depreciation expense in a down real estate market. Particularly when it is known fact that a real estate asset has decreased in value, depreciation should be accelerated and included in FFO.

Consider the hypothetical case of a REIT A that owns one asset: a residential home that is leased for income. REIT A purchased the home on January 1, 2005 for $375,0001. The home rents for $3,000 per month or $36,000 per year for 2005 and 20062. Interest, taxes and insurance are $500 per month or $6,000 per year. Here is the 2005 & 2006 Income Statement for REIT A:

REIT A
Net Income (2005 & 2006)
   
INCOME Amount
     Annual Rent $36,000.00
   
EXPENSES  
     Interest, taxes & insurance ($20,000.00)
     Depreciation expense ($10,000.00)
   
NET INCOME $6,000.00

1 = Assume $100k is attributable to land & $275K is attributable to building

2 = Assume constant rents for 2005 & 2006 (for simplicity)

REIT A has 10,000 outstanding shares of common stock. Thus, earnings per share (EPS) is $60k / 10,000 or $0.60. However, REIT A would also report an FFO calculation by reversing the depreciation expense. Thus FFO for REIT A would be:

REIT A
FFO (2005 & 2006)
   
INCOME Amount
     Annual Rent $36,000.00
   
EXPENSES  
     Interest, taxes & insurance ($20,000.00)
     Depreciation expense ($10,000.00)
   
FFO ADJUSTMENT  
     Depreciation Reversal* $10,000.00
   
   
NET INCOME $16,000.00

* = Assume 27.5 year straight line depreciation ($275,000 ÷ 27.5 = $10,000)

Per share FFO will be $1.60 per share ($16K ÷ 10,000 shares). You can see that the majority of the FFO number is a result of the reversal of depreciation. Indeed, this might be fair in a rising or stable real estate market. However, assume that the rental home was purchased in 2005 in Stockton, California where home prices have dropped 50%-60%. Also, assume that the excess in inventory has also hurt rent pricing and the home can only be rented for $2,750 per month ($33,000 per year). Here is the Net Income for 2007:

REIT A
Net Income (2007)
   
INCOME Amount
     Annual Rent $33,000.00
   
EXPENSES  
     Interest, taxes & insurance ($20,000.00)
     Depreciation expense ($10,000.00)
   
NET INCOME $3,000.00

In this case, Net Income has been cut in half from $6k to $3k. Here is the FFO for 2007:

REIT A
FFO ( 2007)
   
INCOME Amount
     Annual Rent $33,000.00
   
EXPENSES  
     Interest, taxes & insurance ($20,000.00)
     Depreciation expense ($10,000.00)
   
FFO ADJUSTMENT  
     Depreciation Reversal $10,000.00
   
   
NET INCOME $13,000.00

You can see that FFO decreases very little in comparison with Net Income. FFO only drops 18.75% as compared to a 50% decrease in Net Income.

Is it really fair to continue accepting NAREIT’s FFO metric when we actually KNOW that that an asset has significantly depreciated in value much faster than the 27.5 year straight line depreciation schedule? FFO’s continued use does not make any common sense yet analysts continue to rely on it as dogma and refuse to challenge its validity.

The industry’s emphasis on FFO has incented REITs to continue to acquire assets without regard to long-term cash profitability because a REIT will get more depreciation reversal if it grows its balance sheet. This motivation combined with the availability of credit over the past few years has resulted in irresponsible acquisitions from a sustainable business standpoint. Unfortunately, credit is not as easy to obtain now so some REITs will suffer from real cash problems regardless of the FFO games.

10 Responses to “The Fallacy of F.F.O.”

  1. Mike Harmon Says:

    Nice writing style. I look forward to reading more in the future.

  2. Richard Says:

    Thanks!

  3. Emil Says:

    Hey rich, great stuff dude, but the real question is with all the trouble that is going on will anybody in real power do the right action to correct such mistakes. BTW are we, meaning USA, still a free market system?

  4. Bill Says:

    Real estate and REITS are not valued just by FFO …Net Asset Value ( NAV ) is also extremely important…so is the nature of the real estate and its’ importance in the economy…for example, PLD essentially owns distribution warehouses needed by companies for the holding and distributing of their goods…this economic need will not disappear.

    The current state of the ecomomy is also important in valuation because of the assumptions regarding future cash flows.

    By concentrating on the way you see the FFO measurement,you are making a misjudgement about the viability of these businesses….the FFO describes the cash flow…it says nothing in particular about the long-term viability of the business…in a recession,FFO will go down because the net earnings will go down as depreciation remains the same…just as in a growing environment,FFO will increase because of higher net earnings as depreciation remains the same….in this current environment,earnings will decrease because of overall rent decreases due to lower leasing levels and generally lower rents…concurrently,in this environment,NAV will decrease in recognition of the lower value of rents and occupancy…

    if a REIT can’t pay off its’ borrowings, it’s in big trouble…there could occur a time when there is such a drop in rents and occupancy that it can’t pay off its’ debt…we are not there…if you want to make the assumption that we are going there,that’s your judgement only…

    Depreciation is a return of capital …management must decide how to use that capital…if they have used that capital, with the additional of additional capital ( through borrowing ),to make uneconomic investments, the market will eventually punish them…PLD is a case in point…the market now recognizes the slowing environment and reassesses the value of PLDs’ investments…but again,this is a judgement about both the company and the economy…people were wrong at the top and will be wrong at the bottom…

  5. Bill Says:

    Do you really think it is a good idea to accelerate depreciation in one environment and elongate in in another? How is this supposed to be measured and carried out? Monthly,Quarterly,Yearly,etc.? and what yardstick would you use? If you do as you say , in a rising real estate environment, management will be presented with even higher FFO to use,possibly to pay ever rising real estate prices…this is a prescription for bubbles and depressions..

  6. Stripnomics » The Next Tsunami Says:

    [...] ANSWER: Faulty assumptions and The Fallacy of FFO [...]

  7. FOOLSGOLD Says:

    Richard, you truly are a fool…

  8. Richard Says:

    Bill-

    You are absolutely correct.

    Foolsgold-

    Maybe you should stop reading me and go buy the REITs. I dare you to take the other side of my trade and I hope you do. When you are broke…remember I told you so.

    Richard

  9. Stripnomics » Blog Archive » Alexandria Real Estate Cuts Dividend, Outlook & Announce Senior Convertible Offering Says:

    [...] to $5.18 to $5.22 a share down from the $6.26 a share the company projected in February (I think FFO is a BS metric).  The company updated its 2009 earnings per-share guidance to $2.14 to $2.19 down from $2.73 a [...]

  10. FOOLSGOLD Says:

    Buying plenty of preferreds and making a ton of cash…
    BTW, you’re getting schooled by Mr. Hayes on the ARE mesage board and it’s quite entertaining. You should go back to your day job because you’ve now successfully demonstrated how poor you financial analysis skills are…

Leave a Reply